I'm concerned with the ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, and that some other workers will have the right to force corporations to provide services regardless of their deeply held religious beliefs.

Does the ruling only apply to a couple of corporations?

Does it only apply to certain forms of birth control?

  • 1
    I would reword your question. We don't have crystal balls. I'd you are interested in the specific decision in the Hobby Lobby case, we can answer that (it was a specific ruling that the Justices said wasn't a broad ruling). The "loophole" was caused by Congress not liking the courts ruling on a previous case involving the firing of American Indians and peyote use. Yes, HL didn't object to all forms of birth control, only a few that they believe murder humans. If you don't want word of mouth, you need to read the ruling yourself
    – user1873
    Jul 8, 2014 at 7:30
  • You can read the decision here.
    – user1873
    Jul 8, 2014 at 7:33
  • The ruling isn't about the right to force corporations to provide services based on religious beliefs, but the right of corporations (in this case closely held ones) to decline to directly pay for religiously proscribed acts. It's a statutory right to abstain from sin, as one sees it. I'm not sure what you means by "other workers will have the right to force corporations to provide services based on their religious beliefs."
    – NL7
    Jul 8, 2014 at 23:20
  • @NL7, I have corrected the issue.
    – user1873
    Jul 9, 2014 at 2:55

1 Answer 1


You can read the decision here. The decision applies to closely-held corporations (i.e. corporations for whom the majority of shares are held by five or fewer people) whom the Supreme Court feels can demonstrate a sincere religious conviction about contraception.

Closely held corporations employ around 29 million Americans, so they do not constitute only a few corporations, though it is perhaps true that only a few can demonstrate sincere religious beliefs. Furthermore, closely held corporations with fewer than 50 employees are not subject to the Affordable Care Act's mandate, and some may not provide any health insurance at all.

It is not clear to what degree this ruling would apply to other religious objections, as Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out in her dissent.

Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision.

Though Alito, writing for the majority, said that this decision does not require that all employee coverage mandates fail when they conflict with religious beliefs, without more precedent, we do not yet know what other coverage mandates could fail given a conflict.

  • 2
    Another thing to mention is while there are a lot of closely held corporations many aren't big enough to even be subjected to Obamacare regulation.
    – Ryathal
    Jul 8, 2014 at 13:05
  • @Ryathal that is a point, though unfortunately I don't know how many closely held corporations are of that size.
    – Publius
    Jul 8, 2014 at 22:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .